'Innovation' and 'Tax strategy' have my interest. In the UK the Executive has to sign off the company's tax strategy and publish. The strength of the UK approach is that the Executive has to take position and also has to keep its promise as a public statement is made.
This legal change realises that it has now become an Executive owned KPI to manage 'overall tax risks' resulting that the supervisory board and external auditor have the responsibility to audit 'in compliant or not' as the company might face reputational risks when that promise is not kept.
Without such Executive sign off not much would have changed tax function wise. At least that is the lesson learned from the Dutch initiative: 'Horizontal Monitoring' where such a sign off and public statement were missing.
Do you see the difference from a governance perspective?
Source: From tax strategy to artificial intelligence to automating the tax adviser | Richard H. Cornelisse | Pulse | LinkedIn